Sunday, August 31, 2014

I have suggested before that if men are trying to "Alphas" it's not because the want to be, but it's due to some women's manipulation. That is, they think if women like confident, funny men, some men try to be those things (but misname it "Alpha" then pile on a bunch of garbage with it - like the name itself).

But still, it's in response to women's unconscious manipulations.

"Hi, my name is Mystery and I wear a fuzzy hat and mascara to try to get laid - no matter how ridiculous I look!"

Scott Adams, he of Dilbert fame, has a cartoon showing Dilbert putting his head in a drawer and slamming it on his head, in response to a woman's claim that he had to do it to date her. Her last words in the panel? "And they're supposed to be on the ones who run the world."

If women only dated men who dressed like court jesters, men would start dressing like court jesters.

In the past, one of the things that a man is supposed to be is one who does not change his behavior in response to what women want.

I've mentioned this before, but I know guys who have slept with over a hundred women. Not surprisingly they were wimps and by middle age, were desperately dependent on one women. They didn't love them; they were just desperately, anxiously dependent on them.

One of the reasons why is because they never their own man. They did what women wanted so they could get laid a lot. And some never understand that.

"The decision to divorce is always going to be difficult, and for many there can be good reason to end a marriage.

"Yet, 50 per cent of divorcees have regrets about their break-up, a study revealed. Researchers found that after the dust settled, 54 per cent experienced second thoughts about whether they had made the right decision, with many realizing they miss or still love their ex-partner.

"For some, the regrets have been so severe that 42 per cent have had moments where they considered giving their relationship another go, with a large percentage actually making the effort to try again and 21 per cent of those still together now.

"[...]A spokesman for the survey, who asked 2,000 UK men and women that have either divorced or called time on a long-term relationship of more than five years, says: ‘Getting divorced is a huge step for any relationship, and sometimes, the words ‘I want a divorce’ can be said in the heat of an argument.

"But once you calm down and really think about things, many realize it’s the last thing they want, but by then, you can feel it’s too late to take it back.

"And even if you don’t regret it immediately, dealing with the aftermath of a break-up can lead to more second thoughts. But it’s great to see some have managed to talk about their regrets and give things another go.’

"The study found one in five said the regrets started straight away, with another 19 per cent having second thoughts within a week of saying the D-word.

TOP TEN REASONS FOR REGRETTING A DIVORCE

Missing an ex-partner
Feeling like a failure
Still being in love with an ex-partner
Realizing they were being unreasonable
Feeling lonely
Discovering the grass isn’t always greener'
An ex-partner finding someone new
Realizing they are not better off on their own
Damaging the relationship with their children
Children’s lives being affected

"But for some, it took longer with more than one in ten admitting it took a year or more for them to wish they hadn’t left their partner.
"Others admitted they wished they could take things back when the divorce officially came through. Especially when they have worked to divide their assets or started telling people they were calling it quits.

"This study fits together well with another study that I blogged about before.

"The article is by Mona Charen, and the study is by the Institute for American Values. It’s an older article, but I was reading a book that mentioned the study, so I thought I would blog on it.

"Excerpt:

"Now, the Institute for American Values has released a new study with some intriguing data about the effects of divorce on the unhappy couples themselves. It seems that another great myth is about to tumble – the myth that at least divorce makes unhappily married adults happier.

"According to the survey, conducted by a team of family researchers, unhappily married adults who divorced were no happier five years after the divorce than were equally unhappy couples who remained together. And two-thirds of unhappily married people who remained married reported marriages that were happy five years later. Even among those who had rated their marriages as “very unhappy,” nearly 80 percent said they were happily married five years later. These were not bored or dissatisfied whiners. They had endured serious problems, including alcoholism, infidelity, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, depression, illness, and work and money troubles.

"Even more surprising, unhappy spouses who divorced actually showed slightly more depressive symptoms five years later than those who didn’t. (They did, however, report more personal growth.) And – make of this what you will – the divorced sample reported a good deal more alcohol consumption than the married group.

"[...]The data show that if a couple is unhappy, the chances of their being happily married five years hence are 64 percent if they stay together but only 19 percent if they divorce and remarry. (The authors acknowledge that five years is a relatively short period and many divorced people will eventually remarry, some happily.)

"How did the unhappy couples turn their lives around? The study found three principal techniques. The first was endurance. Many couples do not so much solve their problems as transcend them. By taking one day at a time and pushing through their difficulties, many couples found that time itself often improved matters. Moreover, these couples maintained a negative view of the effects of divorce. 'The grass is always greener,' explained one husband, 'but it’s Astroturf.'

"Others were more aggressive. Those the researchers labeled the 'marital work ethic' types tackled their problems by arranging for more private time with one another, seeking counseling (from clergy or professionals), receiving help from in-laws or other relatives, or in some cases, threatening divorce or consulting a divorce lawyer.

"In the third category were the 'personal happiness seekers' who found other ways to improve their overall contentment even if they could not markedly improve their marital happiness.

"Certainly the survey found some marriages that were impossible to save and some divorced couples who were happier than those who had remained married. That is as one would expect.

"But the most telling aspect of this research is the light it sheds on the importance of the attitude toward marriage. Those who enter marriage with a dim (some might say accurate) view of divorce and a strong religious or other motivation for avoiding it are not only less likely to divorce; they are also less likely to be unhappy. That is the arresting news here. We’ve known that commitment was good for the children of such marriages. We’ve known that commitment was good for society. But until now, it was not clear that commitment actually made married couples themselves more likely to be happy.

"I think the last point is a good point. Right now, a lot of young people are choosing mates based on superficial criteria (looks, money, popularity). The purpose of marriage is, in their opinion, to be happy. And their spouse’s job is to make them happy. That’s their view of marriage. But this ignores the realities of what marriage is about. Marriage is not a contract, it’s a covenant. People who marry ought to be getting into it because they want the responsibility of loving another sinner in close quarters. It’s not about feelings and life enhancement. The most important thing to look for in a spouse is their ability to love self-sacrificially and to make and sustain long-term commitments. Both of these capabilities are damaged the more a person goes through painful serial break-ups, because people become unable to trust and instead withhold love and commitment for their own safety."

Saturday, August 30, 2014

I have pointed out before I was raised in a not-so-great area. I saw some strange things, like people shooting up in front of me and friends dead from drug overdoses. I hated all that I saw and was desperate to leave.

One thing I found is that I started running across very promiscuous girls in middle school, and definitely by high school when they came after me.

And college? Oh, yes.

By high school I realized their was no rhyme or reason to whom they were attracted. It wasn't "Alphas," that was for sure - for one thing, no one can define what an "Alpha" is. It's purely personal preference.

As for promiscuous girls, the more promiscuous they were the wider the range of guys they slept with. Think whores and porn stars. Two of those girls that I can think of became whores.

During this time, during my teens, as I have mentioned before, I read two books: Black Pimps and Iceberg Slim: Portrait of a Pimp.

Later I owned a taxi and ended up working for an escort service at night. I got to know the girls quite well. All of them were not right in their heads. I also knew guys in high school who beat their girlfriends - and the girls stayed with them.

I realized some pretty awful things about certain men and women.

If you want to control a woman it isn't that hard. Those who spend lots of money on books and seminars how to pick up girls or how to be an "Alpha" - you're wasting your money. And those who think women are attracted to "Dark Triad" men - you don't know what the Dark Triad is.

You want to be a "Dark Triad Alpha"? I'll tell you how to do it, based on my experience.

First, you want to target girls as young as you can. Semi-attractive ones best. Tell them what they want to hear. Make sure they are insecure and vulnerable. Woo them with attention and gifts to get them emotionally attached to you (this is called "love bombing").

Then you have to get them addicted to drugs. Make sure they are emotionally shattered, ashamed, disoriented, afraid. Cut them off from their friends.

The next step, if you have to, is to beat them. Don't worry; they'll stay.

You see, this is the real Dark Triad stuff, not the ridiculous fake stuff being fed to you.

Get the girl away from familiar surroundings, disorient her, get emotionally attached to you, get her addicted to drugs, beat her if need be.

The real Dark Triad guys are only interested in power, domination and control. Love? Never heard of it. Hate? Sure.

Were these men and women hedonists? That hasn't been my experience. It had to do with a warped search for love more than anything else.

For that matter, the man who promoted "Alphas" among wolves backtracked later and said they didn't exist. As for "Alphas" among primates, the Alpha male is a child killer and a cannibal. So transferring the concept from animals to humans doesn't work at all. That's why no one can figure out what an "Alpha" is.

What all this stuff is, really, is what cults do to recruit people. You have to use mind control. You have to break them, brainwash them - and these techniques are well-known. Look them up.

Your mind is a weapon - for good, or bad.

Or, best of all, study the techniques the Muslims used in Rotherham. Experts!

"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind." - Rudyard Kipling

"It is statistically impossible for every college-educated woman from your generation to date a man with a college degree." - Reddit Red Pill

BWAHAHA!!!

These "amazing, gorgeous" women be STUPID! Didn't their mommies and daddies tell them anything about life? Did they even know anything about life?

Men don't judge women on their careers and education and the money they make (unless they're male gold-diggers, which is coming). Men judge women on being attractive to them, if they are pleasant and funny and can play, if they appreciate men for what they have done and still do, if they can at least cook something! Even a sammich would be good enough!

These women just don't get it. They're not attractive. And with the economy this bad and Affirmative Action meaning "White Men Need Not Apply," there is going to be even less of these "acceptable" guys.

I wonder what these women would think if some guy told them truth: "Ambitious professional women are not attractive to men. For that matter, you are not 'strong and independent' since men created everything in the world, which makes you 100% dependent on them. And another thing: a lot of women aren't very rational and lack abstract thought."

These women are shallow.

As for the men they think should just appear, Prince Charming-wise, are they talking about engineers and computer geeks? Or doctors and lawyers and investment bankers? Good luck with that, morons!

By the way, what do these women have to offer? This? (It's the woman who wrote this article).

"My Millennial-aged girl friends and I never doubted that we would accomplish all of our life goals. Everything, thus far, has pretty much gone according to our plans. We were accepted into the right college, landed the dream job, and developed a network of amazing friends. Our apartments are beautifully decorated and we have closets full of stylish clothing. Romance hasn’t been entirely sidelined, but we don’t waste our time trying to cultivate a relationship unless someone is really amazing.

"But now, a growing number of Millennial women are beginning to fret over the unanticipated consequences of prioritizing our careers before love. And I only need to look at my group of friends to see this reality. Again and again, year after year, my successful, gorgeous, and amazing friends remain kiss-less on New Year’s Eve. And on Valentine’s Day. And on the 4th of July. The only dateable men we encounter are either attached, gay, or otherwise involved in 'it’s complicated' situations. We are coming to the realization that we were unwittingly playing a game of musical chairs — while everyone was pairing up, those focused on our careers are left standing alone.

"And we can’t figure out what is happening.

“'I don’t think the issue is that men used to be great and now they’re not,' says Jezebel’s Katie J.M. Baker. 'Women used to feel more pressure to get married and have kids earlier, and prioritize those goals above the others.' Add to that women’s ability now to be self-sufficient financially and supported socially by so many friends in the same boat, it shouldn’t be that surprising so many Millennial women are single. Except to us singletons, it isn’t supposed to be this way.

"When it comes to romance, Millennial women are typically described using several broad strokes that don’t reflect nuance or contradictions. We are the hook-up generation. We are afraid of commitment. We are ball-busters or fairy-tale dreamers. Each cliché may have elements of truth, but the fuller story is a result of several influencing and interconnected factors.

"For one, it’s not as if we are holding out for Jake Gyllenhaal, but we do have certain non-negotiable expectations for potential mates that include college degrees and white-collar jobs. Life has always gone according to our plans, so why wouldn’t we land a man with these (reasonable) requirements?

"This unwillingness to settle for less than we think we deserve is joined by a lax attitude towards searching for potential mates. We’re busy dominating the world. We don’t have time to hang out at bars. While some of us explore online dating or take a more proactive approach, the majority of Millennial women have long assumed we would meet Prince Charming via friends, or through their own social circles. 'Why should we waste our precious time and energy unless we meet someone we really connect with and care about?' asks Baker. 'I think it’s great that Millennial women are picky and don’t feel as much pressure to be in monogamous relationships as did previous generations. I do think all Millennials, not just women, are used to the idea of being able to ‘curate’ experiences — that’s why so many people are into online dating, because you can pick and choose character traits — and that makes people wary about settling down, especially when, in a city like New York, there are so many options.'

"Unfortunately these assumptions bump up against the growing inequality between the two genders. Millennial women have taken it for granted that they will pair up with equal partners. But increasingly, there aren’t enough of these men to go around. Women now outnumber men on college campuses, and single, childless women out earn their male counterparts. In fact, as author Liza Mundy writes in her book, The Richer Sex, Millennial women are increasingly finding two options when it comes to romance: marry down or don’t marry. 'There needs to be a cognitive behavior change in what are [considered] important traits,' says Mundy. 'I talk to so many women who are obsessed with finding men on their level. They want someone as ambitious, engaged, and high-achieving as they are. They maybe need to rethink that to seek a partner who is supportive, rather than competitive.'

"According to Meg Jay, Ph.D., a psychologist and author of The Defining Decade: Why your twenties matter--and how to make the most of them now, many 20-somethings believe they have all time in the world and how they spend their 20s doesn't matter. But Jay says they matter most. The foundation you build in your 20s will define the rest of your life. Take yourself seriously, she urges.

"Or, accomplished women hold firm in searching for impressive men to help them feel they are getting anything out of the partnership. 'They have this list of qualities (smart, has a job, knows something about culture or the world, etc) that seem pretty reasonable, but so few men meet the requirements,' says Melanie Shreffler, a marketing consultant on Millennial culture. 'Going back centuries, it was just a contract between two parties. Love and even friendship or liking each other weren’t important. If you were lucky, they developed over time. But now, we think we can find a guy who will be our best friend, our other half, who we will love before we marry. Finding that in a guy that we also find attractive makes the probability of finding a 'good match' even less.'

"Plus, many Millennial women are in the uncertain 'grey' age range where we aren’t sure if we need to start stressing out over our single status and lower our standards. Or whether we simply need to remain patient that the right man will come along.

"There is also an odd paradox in that Millennial women can be outright ambitious in their professional lives, but the same approach towards dating conveys desperation. '[Marriage] is a worthy goal,' say Mundy. 'It’s strange that it’s stigmatized. When women work as explicitly hard to find romance and they do for their careers, they are seen as man-hungry. It’s a shame since studies show that marriage makes one healthier and happier. There’s no shame in wanting a great life.'

"At the very least, Millennial women can always turn to those in relationships for helpful dating solutions. “If your utmost priority is to find a mate, maybe you should think about the qualities that are most important to you and keep that in mind when writing people off,' says Baker. 'But I don’t want that to come off as me encouraging women to ‘settle’ — because I’d personally rather be single than in a relationship with someone who isn’t worth it.'

"And there’s always the popular suggestion to move to another state with a more favorable male-female ratio. It worked for my sister who found her boyfriend in Alaska."

Friday, August 29, 2014

This article agrees with what many have noticed: feminism is not about equality and never has been. It's about dragging attractive women down to Jabba the Hut's level and forcing men to hump nothing but fat, ugly hostile women. if that came true, my dick would never unshrivel.

Imagine if by law you had to pork a fat, ugly feminist. Oh, the horror! The humanity!

"I don’t agree with my [outspoken third] cousin Rush Limbaugh on everything. He seems to have an inability to disagree with the Republican Party over anything. As a libertarian, I often sympathize with the GOP, but there are a few political positions of theirs that drive me bat-shit fucking crazy (namely foreign policy, ceding liberty under the guise of increased security, and the war on drugs.) However, there is one, what the left labeled as 'sexist' and incendiary, opinion of his with which I have never agreed more. It is one of his proclaimed 35 Undeniable Truths of Life: that 'feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.'

"Think about it. When have you ever seen an attractive feminist? Show me one of these blabbering activists that any self-respecting man would also deem fuckable, and I’ll take you out to the bar one evening with the whole tab on me! Let’s consider some of the popular feminist mantras out there. These wind-bags boast about being proud to be female, regardless of weight or physical attractiveness. 'It’s who you are as a person that counts,' they say. Men are sexist pigs for considering physical attractiveness when trying to find a suitable mate, a chant the feminists believe will eventually become true if they repeat it tirelessly enough. Attractive women don’t need to take part in this nonsense–all they’ve gotta do is be a little flirtatious with a horny guy at the bar who’s loaded with enough testosterone and booze to kill Charlie fucking Sheen, and BAM–she’s got a one way ticket to go to Pound Town with any male specimen she desires. Men flock to hot women–that’s natural selection, biological nature.

"The problem for the feminists is that this reality leaves them with table scraps from which to choose. These repulsive, menopause-nearing hags want a good fucking every now and again just like any other human being. But, owing to their, shall we say, design flaws, they’re left to choose from the disease ridden transients and bottom feeders that they find in a bar that fraudulently allows its customers to pay with an EBT card. They don’t think it’s fair to be subjected to the ridicule of trying sexual positions invented to accommodate obesity, or to pull a rotting tooth from between their beef curtains after receiving cunnilingus from a crackhead.

"To give them a sense of importance and self worth, they created feminism, the ultimate goal of which is a Marxist redistribution of attractive men (they’re taking Obama’s mind-numbingly stupid ideas about economic policies and are applying it to sex–'pussy policy,' if you will.) They know that not all of these wretched harlots will be able to marry a man that’s attractive, or even average looking. Nevertheless, in their world of 'equality,' even the most slovenly, transvestite-donkey-witch will be graced with the occasional, drunken hump-and-dump from someone who fell victim to the deception of the beer goggles (and so goes the proverb: beauty is in the eyes of the beer-holder.)

"There are two ways to remedy a problem dealing with any sort of disadvantage. You either bring the people from the bottom to the top, or you take from those at the top and redistribute to the bottom. Since using cosmetic procedures to remedy the feminists’ ailment would create a back-order of qualified plastic surgeons until year 2250, they had to find a way to rectify their unfortunate situation of having been beaten with the proverbial ugly stick branch tree-trunk.

"Alas, their solution to their handicapping appearance deficits is to knock the sexy ones down a couple pegs. Consider the other part to their mantra: the empowerment of the plus-sized woman. They incessantly retort that it is okay for women to be fat, abrasive sluts–there’s no shame in your body. 'You’re not sex objects or decorations,' they say. While they hide behind the shield of academia, making some very well-reasoned and articulate arguments about the progress of women kind, do not let their talking points make you for a fool.

"They want this idea to catch on. They want the swimsuit models and starving actresses to all become fat, abrasive sluts. By hoping to diminish the average standard of all society’s women, they’re increasing the likelihood that they can get a good cock-ramming from a man who has had to lower his standards because of the declining standard among women. They hope that among this new, degenerated pool of females awaiting penile ravishment, they may even have the opportunity to 'volunteer as tribute,' so that they’ll finally be the ones Catching Fire (under their FUPAS.)

"As I mentioned earlier, they use other topical arguments to hide the real reason for their activism that is their conquest for cock. Consider the following anecdotal evidence. Remember when Daniel Tosh made a rape joke, and then had to apologize for doing his job as a comedian because funny jokes are illegal now his insensitive remark? Well that gave way for multitudes of feminist propaganda. Shortly there after, Jabba the Hut Lindy West decided to take up the cause of making feminism appear legitimate by going on a TV debate, demonizing rape jokes in all circumstances. After such an event, she received threats of death and sexual violence. Since feminism is all about being strong and empowered (until things get a little frustrating,) she took to the Internets again, this time using a Youtube video to whine about it as if people gave a damn (in case she didn’t notice, there is a war going on and the economy is in the shitter.)

"Lindy West wants all women to look like her, in order to bring the spirit of 'equal opportunity' to the act of getting laid. Here she is day dreaming, her face positioned so that she can imagine what it’d be like to have an attractive man blast her in the face with his warm spray.

"This prompted an overload of psychopathic, feminist diatribes. They cited this as evidence of the myth of 'Rape Culture,' (which I ridiculed in my previous post,) that these comments are indicative of the problem West addressed during her televised debate.

"Since this is a Bullshit-Free Zone, I can’t in good conscience detail the arguments they made for this . . . because those arguments are BULLSHIT! It is a farce, an artificial veneer that exists only to cover up the true goal of feminism: coital compensation for the homely tragedies that manifest themselves upon the visages, bosoms, buttocks, thunder thighs, and cankles of feminists across the nation.

"To refute their claim, I’ll refer them to lovely political commentator Ann Coulter. Among the things Coulter has said include 'Jews need to be perfected,' and, on National Coming-Out Day, she said 'coincidentally, tomorrow is national Disown Your Son Day.' Do you think she’s ever received death threats for any of the shit she’s said? Fuck yes. She just doesn’t whine about it like a little bitch because she’s a trooper. And because she isn’t so desperate to create a level playing battlefield to host the explosions of man’s Goo-Bazooka that she’d disguise such an intention with a complete farce such as feminism.

"That being, said, I return to my earlier offer of a bar tab on me. Just find me one feminist who doesn’t look like what Princess Leia strangled them with a chain.

"I challenge you to find me one, progressive Swamp Thing that is even slightly distinguishable among a crowd of trolls in leggings. If that cannot be done, you may resort to artifacts. Find me one Proud to Be a Feminist t-shirt whose cotton fabric isn’t plagued with unsightly stretch-marks from horrendously sagging mammary glands [titties], and putrid pit stains of sweat and lard. Find me any of these, and the reward is all yours.

Because she's charming and authoritative. Many people fall for that. Let's put it this way: do you want really her or someone like her screwing with your head?

"Charm" means the use of words. And charming and authoritative people can misuse it - that's why we get cults. They give people meaning, importance and community in their lives, the feeling they have the answers, ones that give them the security they've sought for years.

Use your brains, otherwise you're no better than some ditzy woman.

"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind." - Rudyard Kiping

"Woman is finally jailed after five false rape allegations against her ex-boyfriends in eight years" - Mail Online

Women are notorious for filing false rape charges. Let's take Mike Tyson, who is a moron. He didn't rape anyone. The problem is that he didn't call her the next day. And the purpose of his bodyguards was not to keep the men away, but the women. And yet this "Alpha" went to prison for years.

For that matter, there is no "rape culture" in the U.S. except among blacks, and in Europe, among Muslims raping white girls. In colleges? Not even close.

When I was about 21 I read an article which said that the FBI had decided that 90% of women's rape accusations were false. I had a hard time believing that, so I asked my mother, who was the night admitting clerk at the local ER.

"90% of them are false," she told me.

I've always remembered that.

Years later, at a place I was working, my boss came by and told me a woman had claimed I was sexually harassing her. I was mystified. He wouldn't tell me who she was, but someone else did.

It was a woman who had been trying to get involved with me, but I wasn't interested, so she claimed I was harassing her. It was all fantasy.

A few years after that, I was working at another place when my manager, who was my friend more than boss, told me a women there had complained he was "sexually harassing" her.

This guy was very good-looking and very popular with women.

I knew the woman he was talking about. I told him she had a crush on him, and told him my story. He looked shocked and said, "My father said the same thing, that she had a crush on me!"

A year or so later, he moved to another company, and I lost track of him. But I few years after that, I encountered a woman who knew both of us. I asked what happened to him.

She told me a woman had been put in charge of this guy, and soon after fired him because he would not get involved with her. And he was, you know, an "Alpha." And he lost his job.

But, but, but - these things don't happen to "Alphas"!

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." And that includes those "Alphas."

The Manosphere has a lot of goofy ideas, such as "Alphas" don't get rape or sexual harassment charges filed against them, because only "Betas" do. Alphas and Betas don't exist, not in way the denizens think, and "Alphas" (sic) certainly do get charges filed against them.

In fact, they get a lot more charges than "Betas."

All these new college policies about rape are going to do a few things: the more popular men (the misnamed "Alphas") will have more complaints filed against them, while the real "Dark Triad" (sic) rapists won't be deterred at all.

As if often the case, the Manosphere gets it backward.

"Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes that there is." - Sex crimes prosecutor Craig Silverman

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Contrary to those who assert otherwise, this country was founded on Christianity, and is overwhelmingly still Christian. So it is helpful to have some understanding of it, and its intellectual history.

As usual, I don't agree with all of it ("meek" is best translated as "humbly observant").

"My topic today is Jesus' concept of happiness. And we must begin with the dullest and most necessary preliminary: defining our term. Nearly everyone, from Aristotle to Freud, agrees that we all seek happiness, and that we seek it as an end, not as a means. No one seeks happiness for any other reason. We argue about other things, but not about happiness. We may say, 'What good are riches if they don't make you happy?' But we don't say, 'What good is happiness if it doesn't make you rich?' This is clear, to both ancients like Aristotle and moderns like Freud.

"But there is a very significant difference between the typically ancient and the typically modern meaning of happiness. Ancient words for happiness, like eudaimonia, or makarios in Greek or beatitudo in Latin, mean true, real blessedness, while the modern English word happiness usually means merely subjective satisfaction, or contentment, so that in modern English, if you feel happy, you're happy. It makes no sense, in modern English, to tell someone, 'You think you're happy, but you're not.

"But that is precisely the main point of the most famous book in the history of philosophy, Plato's Republic: that justice, the all-inclusive virtue, is always profitable, that is, 'happifying'. And injustice never is. Thus, that the just man, even if like Socrates, he has nothing else, is happy. And the unjust man is not, even if he has everything else, like Gyges, or Gollum, with his ring of power and invisibility. Thus, we should distinguish the ancient concept, which is really blessedness, from the modern, which is really contentment. I shall be talking about blessedness here.

"Blessedness differs from contentment in four ways, all of which can be seen by analyzing the Greek word eudaimonia. First, it begins with the prefix eu, meaning good, thus implying that you have to be good, morally good, to be happy.

"Second, daimon means spirit, thus implying that happiness is a matter of the soul, not the body and its external goods of fortune. The word happiness, by contrast, comes from the Old English word hap, meaning precisely fortune, luck or chance, which was the one Pagan thought category Christianity subtracted. In all other cases, Christianity added to Paganism. As Chesterton said, summing up all spiritual history in three sentences: 'Paganism was the biggest thing in the world. Christianity was bigger, and everything since has been comparatively small.' If blessedness is spiritual, it is free. You are responsible for your eudaimonia, but happiness just happens.

"Third, eudaimonia ends in ia, which means a lasting state, something permanent. Contentment is for a moment, blessedness for a lifetime. So much so that Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics could not make up his mind whether to agree or disagree with the saying 'call no man happy 'til he is dead.' That is, wait for the end of the story to judge it.

"Blessedness differs from contentment in four ways, all of which can be seen by analyzing the Greek word eudaimonia.

"Fourth, and most important of all, the state of eudaimonia is objective, whereas contentment is subjective. When we say happiness, we usually confuse these two meanings, the ancient and the modern. And that is not wholly unwise, because within the ancient concept of happiness, in a secondary way, there is also present the modern one: the need for some contentment, peace of mind, pleasure and at least a modicum of the gift of fortune. While within the modern concept of happiness, that is, within subjective contentment, there is also present, in a secondary way, a feeling for the need of something of the typically ancient ingredient, the need for at least some virtue and the feeling that the happiness, to be deep and lasting, ought to be real and earned and true happiness, whatever that may be.

"We are about to explore Christ's concept of happiness. It is typically ancient (blessedness) but it also includes the above ambiguity or doubleness of meaning: subjective satisfaction as well as objective perfection.

Our Concept of Happiness

"Let's look first at our concept of happiness. When I speak of our concept, who is us? I mean our culture, the mental landscape we all inhabit, even when we feel like aliens here, most generally the modern, post-Christian West, but most specifically contemporary America, as it would appear on opinion polls.

"If an opinion poll were to ask Americans to list the nine most important ingredients in the happy life, they would probably give an answer pretty much like the following: First, the most obvious, though not the profoundest ingredient, is probably wealth. If you notice your friend has a big smile on his face today, you most likely would say to him, 'What happened to you? Did you just win the lottery?' If that's what you'd say, it must be because that's what would put the biggest smile on your face. And let's face it; money can buy everything money can buy, which is a lot of stuff.

"Second might be our culture's most notable success, the conquest of nature and fortune by science and technology, allowing each of us to be an Alexander the Great, conqueror of the world. Third would probably be freedom from pain. I think few of us would disagree that the single most valuable invention in the entire history of technology has been anesthetics.

"Fourth would probably be self-esteem, the greatest good, according to nearly all of our culture's new class of prophets, the secular psychologists — and secular psychologists are among the most secular of all classes in our society. Fifth might be justice, securing one's rights. Justice and peace summarize the social ideals of most Americans, the ideals they want for themselves and for the rest of the world.

"Sixth, if we are candid, we have to include sex. To most Americans, this is the closest thing to heaven on Earth, that is ecstasy, mystical transcending of the ego — unless they're surfers. Seventh, we love to win, whether at war, at sports, at games of chance, in business, or even in our fantasies. Our positive self-esteem requires the belief that we are winners, not losers. We want to be successful, not failures.

"But it is even harder to believe that anyone would believe his utterly shattering paradoxes about happiness.

"Eighth, we want honor. We want to be honored, accepted, loved, and understood. In our modern egalitarian society, we are honored, not for being superior, but for being one of the crowd. In most ancient societies, one was honored for being different, better, superior, excellent. But we still crave to be honored. Some even want to be famous. All want to be accepted.

"Ninth, we want life, a long life and a healthy life. Thomas Hobbes is surely right in saying that fear of violent death, especially painful and early death, is very, very powerful. Your life is not happy if it's taken from you, obviously.

"This all seems so obvious and so reasonable as to be beyond argument. Higher ideals than these are arguable. Some of us seek them and some of us do not. But these nine would seem to be firm and impregnable, universal and necessary. Whoever would deny that they form a part of happiness would be a fool. Whoever would affirm that happiness consisted in their opposites would be insane.

Christ's Concept of Happiness

"Let us now perform a fantastic thought experiment. Let us suppose that there was once a preacher who did teach precisely that insanity, point for point, deliberately and specifically. Perhaps you cannot stretch your imagination quite that far, but I'm going to ask you to stretch it even one step farther. Imagine this man becoming the most famous, beloved, revered, respected, and believed teacher in the history of the world. Imagine nearly everyone in the world, even those who did not classify themselves as his disciples, at least praising his wisdom, especially his moral wisdom, especially the single most famous and beloved sermon he ever preached, the Sermon on the Mount, the summary of his moral wisdom, which begins with his 180 degree reversal of these truisms.

"Perhaps you find this far too incredible to be imaginable. It would be a miracle harder to believe than God becoming a man. It is hard enough to believe that anyone would believe the strange Christian notion that a certain man who began his life as a baby, who had to learn to talk, and ended it as an executed criminal, who bled to death on a cross, and in between got tired and hungry and sorrowful, is God, eternal, beginningless, immortal, infinitely perfect, all-wise, all-powerful, the Creator.

"But it is even harder to believe that anyone would believe his utterly shattering paradoxes about happiness. Perhaps we do not really believe them after all. Perhaps we only believe we believe them. Perhaps we have faith in our faith rather than faith in his teachings.

"For, of course, I am referring to Christ's eight beatitudes which opened his Sermon on the Mount, the most famous sermon ever preached, and the one part of the New Testament that is still held up as central and valid and true and good and beautiful even by dissenters, heretics, revisionists, demythologizers, skeptics, modernists, theological liberals, and anyone else who cannot bring himself to believe all the other claims in the New Testament or the teachings of the Church. These people strain at the gnats but swallow the camel. So let's look at the camel that they swallow. Perhaps they only seem to swallow it. Perhaps they swallow only their own swallowing, gollumping like Gollum.

"To our desire for wealth, Christ says, 'Blessed are the poor in spirit.' To our desire for painlessness, he says, 'Blessed are those who mourn.' To our desire for conquest, he says, "Blessed are the meek.' To our desire for contentment with ourselves, he says, 'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.' To our desire for justice, he says, "Blessed are the merciful." To our desire for sex, he says, 'Blessed are the pure in heart.' To our desire for conquest, he says, 'Blessed are the peacemakers.' To our desire for acceptance, he says, 'Blessed are the persecuted.' And to our desire for more life, he offers the Cross. And now this man carrying his cross to Calvary even dares to tell us, 'My yoke is easy and my burden is light.'"

“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” - Rush Limbaugh

That's a famous story by Kurt Vonnegut, you know. Actually his best short story.

Now if you take his story about everyone being equal, that's when you've got leftism.

Now let's apply that to fat, ugly feminists. What they want is for all women to be like them, and since they can't raise themselves up to being attractive, they have to drag women down to their level. Hence, we're supposed to see unattractive fat women as attractive as, well, women who are attractive, i.e. not fat.

I once read an article by a fat girl about how fat girls get "hot guys."

In other words, unattractive fat girls are supposed to be considered attractive and are also supposed to get those "hot guys." But the guys who aren't "hot" are supposed to, well, you know, just die.

You know: "Be handsome. Be attractive. Don't be unattractive."

Now just imagine if these Jabba the Huts had their way and all women were fat (we're getting there). What would men do? On one hand, they would withdraw from these heinous monsters - and that's how we get MGTOW. Your more disturbed men would close their eyes and pork these beaten-with-the-ugly-stick landwhales - and those are PUAs (I have seen this more than once, so please don't delude yourselves these guy don't bang whores, ugly girls, fat girls, and fat ugly girls).

I read a story once, the name of which I cannot remember, in which rich fat unattractive women were buying attractive men to be slaves. Thank God this was just a fantasy, because if these women had their way, that's just what they'd do.

Next, I expect these women to force attractive women to undergo plastic surgery to make them uglier, like in the novel, Facial Justice.. It is, after all, easier to make someone ugly than attractive.

Blech.

"The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking." - Sailer's Law of Female Journalism.

I've been struck for a long time about the multiple layers of meaning in the story of the Garden of Eden: shame comes before guilt; men's greatest flaw is listening to envious women; women's greatest sin is envy and pride, evil comes into the world through blaming your problems on other people: envy and pride are the most destructive emotions in the world, women are weaker than men (because the serpent targeted her first) and without self-consciousness there is no sense of good and evil.

Without self-consciousness there is no sense of good and evil. Without self-consciousness there is no thought. Does my dog have any thoughts? No. He has consciousness but no self-consciousness, and he has no abstract thoughts.

Throughout history men have always been the rational (abstract thought), the assertive, the protecting, the providing, those who discover, create, invent, explore. Women are the passive, the receptive, the emotional, the supporting.

What this means - and everyone honest knows this - many women have problems with abstract thought. It's why so many women have problems with understanding economics or political thought - instead they just feel ("I feel it's right, so it must be right").

Speaking of mythology, in it women are the ones who bring evil into the world. Think Eve, think Pandora, think Lilith.

Why do they bring evil into the world? Pride ("You can be like God, knowing good and evil"), envy, being run by the feelings and not their reason and abstract thought.

And because when you get them into a group they turn right into children. For that matter all groups turn into children - there is no such thing as a rational mob. They possess no reason or abstract thought. They lack discernment.

Men created civilization; women are incapable of it. Specifically, men take the fruits of nature and turn them into technological civilization, then women enjoy the results. Now ask yourself what qualities men possess than women almost never do? I just listed them.

I've seen these things and so have you. Women follow the led of other women (their "parents") for good or bad. Usually, unfortunately, these days, for bad.

When I was 12 I picked up a book, the name of which I cannot remember, that claimed the nature of women (I think it said the feminine) was dependent, passive, emotional, receptive and nurturing. Being 12, it sounded odd to me, but later I found this to be true - for good or bad.

The masculine is the rational, the assertive (I have also found many women aren't too good at abstract thought).

Later, starting at 13, I started encountering the worst nature of women.

I was raised in a not-very-good city. As the years went by, I found women at their worst can be very sexually promiscuous, to the extent of being whores. I found certain conscienceless men could emotionally manipulate them and get them to do what they wanted, including through violence - that's why they are passive and receptive, again for good or bad. And ultimately, they will also do what they're told.

One of my posters mentioned the movie, Taxi Driver (I owned a taxi for five years and been though things you'd barely believe). I knew exactly what he was talking about: the scene where the pimp (played by Harvey Keitel) emotionally manipulates his 12-year-old whore, Iris, by pretending he loves her. (For one thing, he does it through music, just like the modern media.)

I used to work for an escort service at night when I owned a taxi, and got to know some cops. They hate pimps and want them dead or in prison. The one I knew was in prison.

I've mentioned before if you want to truly understand how degraded women (and men) can be, then read the two books I mentioned a few posts ago: Black Pimps and Iceberg Slim: Portrait of a Pimp.

Slim mentioned he kept his girls under control though mental and emotional manipulation, and if need be, physical. Let's say he beat them with coat hangers, and I'll leave to your imagination where on their bodies he beat them.

The first time I knew of a man beating his girlfriend was when I was a junior in high school. He beat her with a hairbrush - and she stayed with him.

Years later, I was sitting in my car with my 16-year-old nephew when we both saw a teenage boy about my nephew's age throwing some spectacular abuse at his girlfriend, including every cuss word in the book. ("You fucking whore, you fucking slut, you fuck up everything, I hate you!")

My nephew started to get out of the car, but I grabbed him his bicep and told him, "If you attack him, she will defend him and attack you." He looked at me as if I was nuts and didn't know what I was talking about, but he stopped. Years later, he mentioned that scene to me and told me, "It turns out you were right."

If you let women out from under the control of adult men, the worst aspects of their passive, emotional, dependent nature will come to the front. Which is why I mentioned several times they can either marry men or marry the government. They'll become sluts. They'll let men beat them and abuse them to maintain an emotional relationship (think Fifty Shades of Grey).

And because men don't keep them under control, they end up hating and attacking men and blaming all their problems on them. Think of dogs when they don't know know their place in the pack at home. They can become abusive to the owners ("No one is telling me what to do, so I'm getting very upset!").

The Manosphere, as always, gets things confused, claiming women like "Dark Triad Alphas." No, they don't. These "Dark Triad Alphas" are incapable of love and actually hate women. And the women who get attracted to them hate themselves. That is the worst nature of men and women: hate and anger.

Better yet wrath, which can be self-destructive. These people destroy themselves and destroy society. And the naive praise these people as something admirable?

If you want to understand the worst of people, try memorizing the Seven Deadly Sins.

If you think you can get women by acting like one of those "Dark Triad Alphas," then be prepared to beat the women who are attracted to you. Funny that Roissy and his ilk never write about that. For that matter, you'd better be prepared for these girls to hit you - with a weapon. What are you going to do about that?

I consider myself a "conservative," in the sense that I know that civilization is a thin, fragile film holding down a lot of bad human nature. These days, bizarrely, we see this bad nature as a good thing, and celebrate it in the media - the degradation of art, of all that is Good and True and Beautiful.

Schopenhauer wrote a famous article in which he called women "big children." He had a point then, and still does. Whether you consider them big children, or disobedient puppies, either way, when you let them do what they want, they degrade themselves and culture.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

I had a girlfriend who made $120,000 a year (not surprisingly, she worked for the feds). The money didn't mean anything to me. On vacation I wanted to go camping outdoors but she wanted to stay at expensive motels. Whatever.

I told her, imagine being outdoors under the stars with a fire I built. No dice. It left her cold. So we stayed in a $100 a might hotel.

I also knew a man who had been an officer in the Army and when he got out got an M.S. in something; I have forgotten what. He worked for the feds. When he checked the promotion board there were eight white women, one black one, and one Hispanic one. No men whatsoever. He said he and friend just stared at it and said nothing.

I also have a friend who loves the law and wanted to be a law professor. The dean told him, forget it, you stand no chance because you're a white man.

Not only is the economy lousy, it's made worse by the fact Affirmative Action means "White Men Need Not Apply."

So what's going to happen when all these women making a lot of money look around for a man to marry?

For one thing, she's going to run into guys who are gold-diggers, who can't make a decent living anymore, so they have given up and will settle for a woman making a lot of money instead of marrying for love.

I'm sure these high-paying women never saw that coming.

The story is that men aren't attracted to women making a lot of money. They're aren't, not for love. But to have a place to stay and something to eat, yes.

I guess these women thought they were going to have an "equal" relationship. You know, he makes as much as she does. But the very rare guy who does make lots of money isn't going to waste his time with some go-getter female. Who the hell needs that?

When it comes right down to it, you want a relationship that's fun, one that you can engage in play. How many of these career-oriented women are playful? Overwhelmingly, they aren't.

And when you've got some guy turned into a gold-digger because his job prospects have been devastated, how much fun is he going to be when he has to marry a woman because otherwise he might be living in a studio apartment and taking the bus to work?

Things have gotten switched around. It used to be men who worried about gold-diggers. Now it's some women who are suspicious - and shocked! But isn't this what so many women wanted - to be treated like a man?

What are these people getting out of this cosplay? Fun? Sure. Joking and teasing. Anything else? What about meaning, importance, and community? Yes, those, too, and they are very important. In fact, indispensable for a good life.

I said this before, but if you really want to screw someone up to the point they are a danger to people, then take all the fun out of their lives, then, in addition, humiliate and abuse them.

This article is from PsychCentral and was written by Margarita Tartakovsky.

"Our society tends to dismiss play for adults. Play is perceived as unproductive, petty or even a guilty pleasure. The notion is that once we reach adulthood, it’s time to get serious. And between personal and professional responsibilities, there’s no time to play.

“'The only kind [of play] we honor is competitive play,' according to Bowen F. White, MD, a medical doctor and author of Why Normal Isn’t Healthy.

"But play is just as pivotal for adults as it is for kids.

“'We don’t lose the need for novelty and pleasure as we grow up,' according to Scott G. Eberle, Ph.D, vice president for play studies at The Strong and editor of the American Journal of Play.

In his book Play, author and psychiatrist Stuart Brown, MD, compares play to oxygen. He writes, '…it’s all around us, yet goes mostly unnoticed or unappreciated until it is missing.' This might seem surprising until you consider everything that constitutes play. Play is art, books, movies, music, comedy, flirting and daydreaming, writes Dr. Brown, founder of the National Institute for Play.

"Brown has spent decades studying the power of play in everyone from prisoners to businesspeople to artists to Nobel Prize winners. He’s reviewed over 6,000 'play histories,' case studies that explore the role of play in each person’s childhood and adulthood.

"For instance, he found that lack of play was just as important as other factors in predicting criminal behavior among murderers in Texas prisons. He also found that playing together helped couples rekindle their relationship and explore other forms of emotional intimacy.

"Play can even facilitate deep connections between strangers and cultivate healing. In addition to being a doctor and speaker, Dr. White is a clown. His alter ego, Dr. Jerko, is a proctologist with a large behind and a doctor’s coat that says, 'I’m interested in your stools.' Over two decades ago, White began working with renowned physician Patch Adams.

"Today, White continues to clown at children’s hospitals and orphanages all over the world. He even clowns at corporate presentations and prisons. 'Clowning isn’t something we’re doing with kids, we clown with everybody,' he said.

"He’s clowned on the streets of Moscow. White doesn’t speak Russian, but that didn’t stop him from playing with people in Red Square. Within 45 minutes, he was juggling and joking with a crowd of 30.

In Colombia, White’s wife and Patch Adams’s son – also clowns – visited a bedridden father, at his daughter’s request. Once there, they sat on either side of his bed. He didn’t know English, and they didn’t know Spanish. Still, they sang songs, laughed and played with a whoopee cushion. They also cried. The woman later told them that her father deeply appreciated the experience.

"As White said, play can lead us to these sacred spaces and touch people in powerful ways.

What is Play?

“'Defining play is difficult because it’s a moving target,' Eberle said. '[It’s] a process, not a thing.' He said that it begins in anticipation and hopefully ends in poise. 'In between you find surprise, pleasure, understanding — as skill and empathy — and strength of mind, body, and spirit.'

"Brown called play a 'state of being,' 'purposeless, fun and pleasurable.' For the most part, the focus is on the actual experience, not on accomplishing a goal, he said.

"Also, the activity is needless. As Brown said, for some people knitting is pure pleasure; for others, it’s pure torture. For Brown, who’s almost 80, play is tennis with friends and a walk with his dog.

How to Play

"We don’t need to play every second of the day to enjoy play’s benefits. In his book, Brown calls play a catalyst. A little bit of play, he writes, can go a long way toward boosting our productivity and happiness. So how can you add play into your life? Here are a few tips from the experts:

"Change how you think about play. Remember that play is important for all aspects of our lives, including creativity and relationships. Give yourself permission to play every day. For instance, play can mean talking to your dog. 'I['d] ask my dog Charlie, regularly, his opinion of the presidential candidates. He respond[ed] with a lifted ear and an upturning vocalization that goes ‘haruum?’” Eberle said.

"Take a play history. In his book Brown includes a primer to help readers reconnect with play. He suggests readers mine their past for play memories. What did you do as a child that excited you? Did you engage in those activities alone or with others? Or both? How can you recreate that today?

"Surround yourself with playful people. Both Brown and White stressed the importance of selecting friends who are playful – and of playing with your loved ones.

"Play with little ones. Playing with kids helps us experience the magic of play through their perspective. White and Brown both talked about playing around with their grandkids.

"Any time you think play is a waste, remember that it offers some serious benefits for both you and others. As Brown says in his book, 'Play is the purest expression of love.'”

I try to take complex phenomena and reduce it to as simple as I can. It makes it easier to understand.

Take the difference between men and women - or maybe I should say the masculine and feminine. The masculine has always been consider the rational, the assertive, the protecting, the providing, the creating, the discovering, the inventing.

The feminine as always been consider the passive, the receptive, the emotional, the supporting, the nurturing.

Each, of course, can go bad.

The simplest phrase I have encountered to explain these things has been the concept of Yin and Yang. Yang is masculine and Yin is feminine: "Yang protects Yin and Yin nurtures Yang.

So what happens if men stop protecting women and women stop nurturing men?
Oh boy.

Just look around you. When men stop protecting they go PUA or MGTOW. Fight or flight.

And women? Women are never going to attain all of those masculine virtues. It's not their nature, no matter how much they delude themselves. As a result women will always be 100% dependent on men. These days they can either marry men or marry the State. "Strong and independent," indeed.

Imagine if the most essential men didn't go to work tomorrow - say those who supply the power and power? Societal collapse in a few hours.

If society did collapse it would be men who got it online, not women.

What corrupts the masculine and feminine more than anything else? The interference of government. And more than anything else, bad government is about money and power.

It'd be amusing to see these things taught in school. "Sorry, girls, if men didn't provide for and protect you, you couldn't do it on your own. As the humorist P.J. O'Rourke once wrote, without men civilization would last until the next oil change."

"A pimp has gotta know his whores, but not let them know him; he's gotta be god all the way." - Sweet Jones

We'll start at middle school.

When I was 13 years old one of the boys in my homeroom mentioned to me a girl had come to his house when his parents were gone and had sex with the five boys there. She too was 13. I just looked at him and said nothing and was a bit shocked. He was telling the truth.

I didn't know what it meant at the time, but I found out in high school, when I started running across promiscuous girls, including 13-, 14-, and 15-year-olds. I thought, these girls aren't just sluts; they could be whores (later some did become whores).

When I got in college I was told in some classes that women were monogamous and wanted sex with commitment. That wasn't my experience. My experience is that if they could, many would go nuts sexually and become very promiscuous. Turned out later that's exactly what scientists have discovered.

I also found out these promiscuous women didn't go after "Alphas." I've never seen an "Alpha" in my life, but more on that later. These promiscuous women slept with the men they found attractive, and they were all over the map. I've never considered myself all that good-looking, but I've had more than one woman jump in my bed naked. And I was popular enough to be the object of envy from less popular guys,

As I said, I've never met an "Alpha." I've met guys who were popular with women - we called them "popular with women." Ones who were natural leaders of men we called "natural leaders." Ones who tried to dominate other guys we called "pussies" and we beat their asses. Bullies always collapse when you stand up to them.

Then there were the guys who beat women. Known more than one of them. We beat them up, too.

But those "Alphas"? Never met one.

Never met a "Beta," either. The closest was "pussy-whipped," which meant a guy who radically changed his behavior to have sex with women, which included everything from acting like a nice guy to a tough guy. Today, weirdly, some of these guys are called "Alphas" (even though they supplicate to women to get laid and don't even know it they're supplicating). Which is why I take the Manosphere with a boulder of salt. Many don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

"Bad Boys" and the "Dark Triad"? Jesus Christ, are you serious? The first time I saw a needle kit I was 15. The guy is now dead, as is our mutual friend, who died of a heroin overdose at 19.

The first guy I ever saw die of a drug overdose was when I was 16. He was sniffing something; I forget what. And I've seen people sniff paint in front of me when I was 16. I've seen people shoot up, too, which is why I know they draw blood back into the needle to make sure they hit a vein.

None of these guys were popular with women. I've never seen a "Bad Boy" who was. Most so-called Bad Boys are wannabes anyway, and would collapse out of sheer terror if they met a real one, who are mostly quiet guys who aren't "insanely confident," as the "Beta" Roissy deludes himself.

As for confidence, that is one of the Four Cardinal Virtues, and it goes with justice, prudence, self-control. If you don't have one, you don't have any of them. So you can pretend to be "insanely confident" without any justice or prudence or self-control, you're just a fraud, and an insecure one at that. But these things are not taught in church anymore. Or society.

As for promiscuity, it's probably worse for women than men. I've known more than one man who's slept with over a hundred woman. None are capable of love, although they end up desperately attached to one woman or another - when you desperately change your behavior just to get laid you end up being under women's control. That's why they're not "Alphas," but pussy-whipped.

In high school I read an enlightening book called Black Players, about the lives of black pimps (I also have known pimps and boy are they fucked up). In order to be a successful player the first thing they had to do is make they were never under the sexual control of a woman. They never changed their behavior to get laid. The women were there to serve them. In all ways.

If you want to understand the slut/whore nature of degraded women read the two books above. It's nothing new, that extremely limited and indeed deluded Manosphere belief that all women are hypergamous loveless whores. If you believe that, stop reading the bad advice in the Manosphere and buy the those books. I mentioned. I read them as a teenager.

I know a guy who pimped out his own wife - and she would have done it even without him. She wanted to.

I have never been under the control of a woman. When I was 19 I wondered how many women I could see at the same time. I hit three when I stopped. It could have been a few more. I also found it wasn't worth it.

Women are the receptive, the passive, the supporting. They can be good wives, or they can be sluts, or they can be turned out to be whores. Ultimately they will always do what they're told,for good or bad.

And the reason why men "put women on a pedestal" is because if they don't they see them as whores. I know a slut who once whined to my sister, "They treat me like I'm a whore" and my sister told her, "That's because you've always acted like one." And according to guys I know, that was since she was 11.

If women don't nurture and support, men will cease to protect them. That is, they'll become PUAs (women are whores) or go MGTOW (women make me sick).

And that's why Roosh and Krauser are going to end up pussy-whipped. Not to mention liars. Not to mention jaded. They'll find out. It doesn't matter to me.

Because of all these experiences, I realized by the time I was 21 that society is a thin, fragile film holding down a lot of bad human nature. And this stuff screwed with my head for years.

How did I survive all of this, unlike some of my friends? Because I had enough fun, and play, and community to overcome all of the rest of the nasty stuff I experienced.

The idea that smarter men in the past, like Marcus Aurelius or Thomas Aquinas
or St. Augustine or Rudyard Kipling, haven't figured these things out is beyond ridiculous. It's just pathetic.

Monday, August 25, 2014

Joseph Schumpeter call the disruption of the ongoing Industrial Revolution "creative destruction." The problem, as always, is how to maintain the good while minimizing the bad.

Things won't be bad for the smart. They'll be the ones who have the autonomy and mastery and meaning to achieve the excellence that leads to eudaimonia.

Those who IQs are less than 100 are screwed Big Time. They'll get welfare and bread and circuses - and envy and crime that leads to attacking the smart. Who will withdraw into their armed compounds (even if they're called neighborhoods).

If things continue as they are, it might be those whose IQs are less than 120 will be the ones without jobs. After all, that catastrophe known as Barry Soetero has an IQ of only 115. If he wasn't a destructive parasite politician what job would he be qualified for?

How many men would have to withdraw from society before it collapsed? If certain men withdrew - or better yet, died, say politicians - society would get better.

As best as I can tell, all it would take is for the men who run our power and water to not go to work, and society would come to a screeching halt. How many is that? One out of 100? One out of a thousand? One out of a 100,000?

If cops or fireman or doctors didn't go to work, some ways society would get better and in some ways worse, but it would not collapse. But with no water or power society would be close to collapsing in an hour.

When I was a newspaper editor I interviewed a man who was the head of a state-of-the-art waste treatment plant. I think perhaps ten guys worked there. Imagine if they didn't go to work and that facility didn't process all the sewage. My God, it would be a horror. Chaos and horror.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

"Eudaimonia: (Greek, happiness, well-being, success) The central goal of all systems of ancient ethics; according to Aristotle, the ‘best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world’" - The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy in Religion & Philosophy

I've written of this before: eudamonia means well-being/flourishing, and you get it though arete, or excellence. Eudaimonia made it into the Declaration of Independence as "pursuit of happiness," which in no way gives the full flavor of what eudaimonia really means.

And how do you get excellence? Through autonomy, mastery and purpose. See the video for an explanation.

No matter which way I turn, everything is supposed to lead to achieving eudaimonia. What's the purpose of education (which means "to draw out")? To identify your strengths and develop them to your fullest. That is, excellence. Do we have it? Sometimes. Otherwise, nope.

I blame a lot of our school problems not on the teachers, but on the fact our "public" schools are actually socialist - which means everyone is supposed to be "equal." Which is an impossibility. We are not blank slates. Everyone is unequal in their inborn talents.

Socialism doesn't support civilization; it destroys it. The evidence for this is without exception. Yet there are those who attempt to impose it every generation.

The purpose of culture? Same thing. To develop our inborn strengths. Do we have that? No, not really. Our culture is in many ways degraded - our music and other arts especially.

Political science? Same thing. It's supposed to improve our lives to the extent it can. Instead we have a bunch of psychopathic politicians and incompetent economists tormenting us and damaging everything they can put their grubbby little paws on.

Religion? Sometimes. The word means "to bind," which I've heard described as "the social glue that keeps us from coming undone into sheer chaos and rules of the jungle anarchy. It keeps us sane."

For that matter, did not Jesus say, "I have told you these things so that you will be filled with my joy. Yes, your joy will overflow!" Or instead of "overflow," sometimes "complete," sometimes "full." Eudaimonia.

Education, culture, political science, religion...all of them are supposed to keep the chaos at bay and after that, allow us to develop to our best, to achieve eudaimonia through arete. They are supposed to be the best they are be, to allow us to be the best we can be.

All of those things are supposed to be in service to us, and once we are the best we can be, then we can support education, culture, political economy, and religion.

But the way things stand now, those things often use us and expect us to be in service of them. That's what I mean by the Machine State: we're supposed to be cogs in service of the Machine.

The mythologist Joseph Campbell might have put it best: "Man should not be in the service of society, society should be in the service of man. When man is in the service of society, you have a monster state, and that's what is threatening the world at this minute."

"...there is a very significant difference between the typically ancient and the typically modern meaning of happiness. Ancient words for happiness, like eudaimonia, or makarios in Greek or beatitudo in Latin, mean true, real blessedness." - Catholic Resource Education Center

I've paid attention to old wisdom for a long time, because that wisdom evolved by practice, and all the dross gets burned away after hundreds if not thousands of years. Take traditional wedding vows:

"...my constant friend, my faithful partner and my love from this day forward. In the presence of God, our family and friends, I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, and in joy as well as in sorrow. I promise to love you unconditionally, to support you in your goals, to honor and respect you, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live."

Not any more. In some cases, yes, but considering half of people are not getting married, and most divorces are instigated by women...not any more.

I know a couple that got divorced a few years go. They have an eight-year-old son. He got remarried but she has not. She got primary custody of the boy, and he has to pay $400 a month, which he hates.

He has actually set her up to make her seem like a bad mother, so he can gain custody of the boy and not pay any more child support. It's an unending battle.

For that matter, most of the divorced guys I know say they will never get married again and some of them are close to hating women.

"You are here because you are thinking about getting married. Perhaps one of your friends did you a favor, and sent you here. If you are going to be the higher-earner spouse in the marriage, then this article is for you.

Taking the Plunge

"Before you take the plunge there are a few things about marriage that you need to be aware of. The institution of marriage as we know it is no more. It has undergone drastic changes in the last 50 years. What used to be a life long commitment, unbreakable barring the most severe circumstances, has been relegislated into something entirely new thanks to the lobbying efforts of radical feminists and the divorce industry. In trying to to make divorce 'fail-safe' for homemaker/lower-earner spouses, the bad ones included, they have made marriage 'unsafe' for virtually everyone else.

"Marriage today is a temporary union of two individuals where the exit costs are highly asymmetrical. What does that mean? It means that upon the dissolution of the marriage, one spouse generally makes off like a bandit, while the other is pushed into a life of unending poverty, abridged civil rights, and being two paychecks away from arrears, contempt, and prison.

"If someone is made to suffer like that upon the divorce, you probably think that he/she deserved it. Perhaps they were a terrible spouse? Perhaps they cheated? If only this was so. Karma, you see, has nothing to do with it. That was the case during the olden days of 'fault-only' divorce when the spouse who was at fault for wrecking the marriage got penalized during the divorce. With those old divorces , if the at-fault party was the higher-earning spouse, they were made to pay alimony and surrender many marital assets over to the wronged party. Similarly, if the at-fault party was the homemaker/lower-earner spouse, then they were made to forfeit any alimony and forced to accept a smaller share of the martial assets. Morality was a big factor in who made out better and who made out worse

Enter Marriage 2.0

"During the second half of the 20th century all of the ground rules governing marriage were changed. The laws were changed to such an extent that that we can no longer call it 'marriage' as it was known through the millennia. We have to distinguish this mutated institution with a new name. We will call it Marriage 2.0.

All that stuff about the moral carrot and stick is out of the window. Basically the higher-earner spouse is always at-fault (i.e. made to hand over assets and pay alimony), and the lower-earner spouse is always the 'innocent one' (i.e. gets most of the assets and a cut of the ex’s future salaries). It doesn’t matter if the lower-earner spouse was the one having an affair or is the one filing the divorce. Therein lies the problem with modern family laws. You can be the best breadwinner spouse in the world, take good care of your family, and stay true to your marriage vows, and you will still get shafted in the divorce. It’s a suckers bet for the good guy (or the good gal).

"Here are some things working against you, when you are the primary breadwinner spouse within Marriage 2.0, and your spouse decides to walk out (cash out?) on you:

"1. Women Filing Majority of Divorces – 66-75% of all divorces are now filed by wives. Publications like Cosmo love to harp on men for having a 'fear of commitment'. Guys must ask themselves, why commit when it’s the other party who can’t live up to the commitment 3/4 of the time?

"2. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.

"3. Domestic Violence Fraud : Presumed guilty until proven innocent. DV laws are now widely used as the 'opening chess move' of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudulently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.

"4. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.

"5. Losing Custody of Children – Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.

"6. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?

"7. Children as Cash cows - The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.

"8. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of 'spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays'. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!

"9. One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be 'accustomed' to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and 'romantic companionship' services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn’t obligated to provide anything?

"10. Lifetime Alimony – Contrary to common belief, Alimony isn’t on its way out. There was a period in the 1970’s when no-fault laws were first enacted when a few states put limitations on how/when it could be awarded. However since then there have been a concerted effort by powers that be such as the influential American Law Institute (ALI) for bringing alimony back in a big way. Here is a New York Times article covering the release of a landmark 2002 ALI report which recommended broadening and deepening alimony awards across all 50 states. Right on queue there are now reports of alimony horror stories coming out from many states where the breadwinner ex-spouses are ordered to pay lifetime alimony. There are also cases like the on in this Wall Street Journal article where long settled divorce cases are re-opened and modified under the new pro-alimony paradigms. Paul Taylor featured in the WSJ story had his ex-wife take him back to court in 2009, three decades after their original 1982 divorce when both parties had agreed to waive all past/present/future alimony. The court reversed that original 1982 divorce judgement and awarded lifetime alimony to the ex-wife. It was ordered that this new alimony be deducted out of Paul Taylor’s pension and paid monthly to a woman he hadn’t even seen in three decades. Mr Taylor is now in bankruptcy and can look forward to spending his golden years working as a Greeter in Wal-Mart.

"11. Paternity Fraud – If you didn’t catch right away that your kids aren’t really your kids but instead were 'sired' by some guy that your wife was having an affair with, you are out of luck in most states. What’s worse if your cheating wife divorces you, you can bring the DNA tests to court, and you will still be forced to pay 18-23 years of child support for these kids who are some other guy’s spawn. Read this case of the Toronto man forced to pay child-support for twins that even the court acknowledged are not his but ordered him to keep paying anyway. In no other area of the law do we punish the innocent victim for the conduct of two other people

"Even more shocking is this New York Times article about a Pennsylvania man ordered to keep paying child support after his adulterous wife divorced him, and married the very guy she had the affair and conceived the child with. Today the bio-father, the ex-wife, and their bio-child live together under a single roof as a biologically intact family and guess who is still paying them monthly child support? Yes, the cuckold ex-husband still has to pay every month or go to jail. You can’t make this stuff up. Even cuckold porn doesn’t get this vile.

Conclusion

"Marriage 2.0 is a very unequal contract where the legal power balance both within the marriage and after the divorce is heavily biased against the primary breadwinner. Given that this is today’s legal reality why would you want to sign such a one sided contract? There are simply no benefits in marriage for the primary breadwinner under these Marriage 2.0 rules. None whatsoever. Ask yourself now: “What is in it for me?”. If the above hasn’t yet convinced you to avoid this mutated institution that has become a a giant legal trap, then you owe it to yourself to keep learning more about the risks of saying 'I do'."

I generally vacation in the Missouri Ozarks, and have since I was a kid, with my parents, when we would go to Branson before it turned into a senior citizens' entertainment mecca featuring, of all things, one Shoji Tabuchi, an Asian fiddle player with a huge toothy grin and a Moe Howard bowl haircut.

He's completely normal, though, compared to the Ejector Seat, in which two people are strapped into a seat, with their arms across their chests (perfect for a fitting ready-made into a pine box, in my opinion) and hurled shrieking a few hundred feet into the air in-between two elastic cables anchored to two towers. I opined I wouldn't go on it for less than $1,000 cash, since I had no desire to being catapulted into the sky like those knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, when they answered the questions wrong at the bridge. Instead I played miniature golf at the place next door, which featured a real crashed Indiana Jones-type airplane stuck on top of a gigantic fake rock shaped like a skull. Branson's now an unusual town, to the say the least. And I got a hole-in-one, too.

On the last trip, while looking for the Gloria Winery, which has great but inexpensive wine even though the winery turned out to be a shed with an acre of vineyard and a trailer in which the couple who owned the place lived (along with their little dog), we ended up visiting Mansfield, a tiny sleepy town which turned out, much to our surprise, to have been the long-time home of Laura Ingalls Wilder, who was not only author of the Little House on the Prairie books, but who wrote every one longhand while sitting in a home-built chair in their farmhouse on the outskirts of town. The house is a museum now, with very low ceilings, since Laura was 4'11 and her husband Almanzo 5'4". You should see their beds.

A connection that I somehow had never made is that Rose Wilder Lane, author of the early libertarian classic, The Discovery of Freedom, was Laura's and Almanzo's daughter. I didn't realize it until we were wandering through the museum and I saw a copy of Discovery, next to several pictures of Rose, one of which caused me to say, "Oooh, a babe." But since she died in '68, when I was busy learning not to fall off of my Stingray bike and to cover up the burns in the carpet I made with my chemistry set, it was never meant to be. She was most definitely a babe, though.

After blurting out that comment, SWMBO (She-Who-Must- Be-Obeyed) asked, You think she's attractive? Yes, I answered. Aw, that's so cute of you, SWMBO answered. (Strange how you can look at a woman and....pow.)

I wouldn't know if I'm a fan of the Little House books or not, since I've never read any of them. I never watched the TV series, not even once, since I could never get past Michael Landon morphing from a Teenage Werewolf drooling shaving cream to Little Joe to Pa. I did read Farmer Boy, which was Almanzo's biography that Laura wrote, and one which I would highly recommend. I still can't get out of my mind ten-year-old Almanzo getting up at 3 a.m. in the middle of a howling blizzard to move the cows around so they didn't freeze solid and tip over. That's not a joke, either. It really happened.

Laura didn't start writing her books until she was 65, long after Rose had become a successful novelist. The rumor, one that we will never know is true or not, is that Rose heavily edited the books and got them into shape for publication. In other words, the skinny is that she pretty much wrote them for her mom. It's a bit ironic that Laura became far more famous than Rose, and still is today. Unfortunately, there are no living descendents, so the line of this talented family has died out.

None of the family was born in Mansfield, although they all ended up there, including being buried. We missed the cemetery, though. Rose was born in Des Met (when it was called "Dakota Territory") in 1886 and died in her sleep at the age of 83 in '68, right before she was to embark on a three-year tour of the world. At the age of 78, in 1965, she was reporting from Vietnam for "Woman's Day Magazine."

Rose started writing around 1910 and was a successful novelist long before she published The Discovery of Freedom in 1943. Before that, she was most famous for her novels, which are adult versions of her mother's books, although I had never heard of them until I was in the museum. Nearly all of them are about her life in the Ozarks, including one that has the Politically Incorrect title of Hillbilly.

She was (of course?) predominately a home-schooled child, since she was so bored by school in her hometown that her parents allowed her to educate herself at home. Having been in the farmhouse, I know that her parents had a small room off of the living room, set aside as a library with about 300 books, all of them, as far as I could tell, hardbacks. I don't think they had paperbacks in those days.

As an adult Rose had become a stanch opponent of Communism after seeing it in practice in the Soviet Union (unlike many red-diaper dips of that time, who remained enamored of it, a feat that required not only closing their eyes but their brains and consciences), and became one of the most influential libertarians of the middle of the 20th century. She even became the adoptive grandmother of Roger MacBride, the Libertarian Party's candidate for President in 1976.

She opposed the quasi-socialism and creeping taxation of the New Deal so strongly that she quit her high-paying editorial job with the National Economic Council so as not to pay Social Security taxes. She regarded Social Security as unstable and prophetically called it a "Ponzi scheme."

In a pamphlet called "Give Me Liberty" she wrote, "In 1917 I became a convinced, though not practicing communist. In Russia, for some reason, I wasn't and I said so, but my understanding of Bolshevism made everything pleasant when the Cheka arrested me a few times.

"I am now a fundamentalist American; give me time and I will tell you why individualism, laissez faire and the slightly restrained anarchy of capitalism offer the best opportunities for the development of the human spirit. Also I will tell you why the relative freedom of human spirit is better – and more productive, even in material ways – than the communist, Fascist, or any other rigidity organized for material ends."

In 1958, famed libertarian Robert Le Fevre was so strongly influenced by The Discovery of Freedom he asked Rose to come visit his "Freedom School," which he had founded to promote the principles he said her book had taught him. She became a regular lecturer there for several years.

Her extensive correspondence had an effect, too. About it she wrote: "Twenty one years ago... I used to spend all my time, every day, at my typewriter following up every least lead that I could find. Example: I heard a high-school debate among all pro-New Dealers on the radio, and wrote to each of them. One replied, with all the Welfare State collectivist notions that had been put into his head, but he didn't seem wholly unintelligent, so I kept on writing to him for some months, apparently with no effect, finally getting no answer. Now he turns up as publisher of "National Review", telling people that I – i.e., my letters – changed his whole life."

Even though The Discovery of Freedom is Rose's most well-known book, she said years later it was "a very bad book" because of some minor mistakes in it. Still, it has had a profound influence, even now, after all these decades.

What's it about? The book is an attack on statism, nationalism, and what Hayek called the "fatal conceit" of central planning. She starts her story with the old observation that for most of history, people had lived in squalor, with only a few minor improvements through the millennia. What brought them out of it was liberty, the free market, and the emergence of property rights. It has been a kind of miracle, the wealth it has created.

In the first part of the book Rose lays out the one permanent conflict in history: between individual freedom and illegitimate authority (the subtitle of the book is "Man's Struggle Against Authority"). Even today those who seek to impose rule from above call themselves "progressives," when they are nothing of the sort. Like Hayek, like von Mises, like Rothbard, Rose understood it was a backward attempt to impose barbarism and poverty on the human race, to turn the clock back thousands of years.

The first printing of the book, in 1943, was a thousand copies. There wasn't a reprinting until 1971. Since then, it was become one of those early classics, one of those, like Isabel Paterson's The God of the Machine, that can be read and enjoyed by everyone. It's an optimistic book, with passages like this:

"The revolution is only beginning. When all living men know that men are born free, the energy of twenty-two hundred million human beings will be released upon this earth.

"A hundred million have made America. What will twenty-two hundred millions do?"

Such cheerfulness and optimism will appeal to anyone who looks to the future, knowing that even with the two-steps-forward-one-step-back history of humanity, things, ultimately, will get better. It will be due, as it always is, to liberty and the free market.